Quote:
Originally posted by SuperMidget
I applaud you for making your own decisions. My question for you is do you still respect the right of others to own/carry firearms. Or do you vote to strip others of the right. Think about this the next time you say you do not follow a crowd. Even for those who try to find their own choices can still be swayed by illogical and wrong arguements.
Next point (no offense to your parents) Of course police are going to say you are safe to hide and call 911. If people start defending themselves, the police will be out of a job. Not to mention they really don't care what happens to an individual. Police have no right to protect anyone. Courts have ruled this way time and again. Self-protection is up to the individual.
Please read the link I provided above. Read it with an open mind. Whether you agree with the statements put forth in it, it is a good social commentary for this day and age.
|
SuperMidget:
Oh, I think whatever anyone does (well, pretty much anything) inside the walls of their home is their own business. What I do want is for the presence of weapons to be declared for those who might be innocently put in harm's way of them. For example:
If a neighbour's child is invited to come over to play with the firearm owner's child, the parent of the visiting child has the right to know if there are guns in the house. That person should not have to ask; they should be told.
A meter reader/telephone repair person/whoever else might have a legitimate reason to be on the firearm owner's property.
Paramedics, firefighters and police all have the right to know about the presence of firearms.
If I am a guest at a party, and I do not know everybody, and there is drinking, you bet I look for evidence of firearms. If I see them, and they are not safely locked up, I leave. If I have reason to worry for the safety of others, I talk to the owner of the firearms. Strongly.
You want guns? Have guns. Get training. Tell those who might be innocently hurt by them that they are there. Take responsibility.
Please do not think I am suggesting anyone here is unsafe. I have no idea if my fellow posters are or are not. Nobody here can argue, however, that there are many, many accidents every day because some asshole left firearms and ammunition where it should not be.
Why should a milkman die because he was on some armed guy's stoop at five in the morning right after the homeowner's car was stolen? We know worse has happened.
Regarding police (even my old ma & pa) talking the doctrine of harm reduction: police, more than anyone else, have no fear of a lack of job security. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of the police. They lie, cheat and serve themselves just like the rest of humanity. But in this case, they have experience and cold, hard research on their side.
Do whatever you have to to not get hurt. First this means not being a target. Second, it means not being found. Third, it means co-operating. Fourth, and last, it means fighting back with everything you have, killing them if necessary.
The focus isn't harming or not harming the bad people. Nor is it stopping them. The focus is NOT GETTING HURT OR KILLED. You cannot enjoy your right to self-defense (or any other right) if you are dead.
Sorry for the strident capitals, but that is the only point I am trying to make here. If a gun would keep me from being hurt or killed, and not hurt or kill those I care for, I would keep one at home. Research suggests otherwise.
Ideology does not keep me alive. Prudent decision-making does.
I've written far too much already. Time for others. Love the chat, folks.